Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description discloses a genuine side effect that annotations alone would leave opaque: NEXUS re-checks maintenance steps and may refresh, resolve, or cancel stale ones before returning. That explains the readOnlyHint=false flag and is useful context. Beyond that, it doesn't cover permissions or failure modes, so with annotations carrying the safety profile this is a solid but not rich disclosure.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short paragraphs, front-loaded with the purpose and ordering, then routing, then the side effect. Every sentence carries information the agent needs; nothing restates the name or title.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description must carry the full burden, and it does: it enumerates returned fields, states scope limits, names the completion sibling, and warns about the pre-return maintenance pass. An agent has enough to call and interpret this correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate; the description instead enumerates return fields (step_id, instruction, context, expected effect, estimated progress, goal). Informative, but per the zero-param baseline this sits at the standard level rather than above it.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the pending plan steps ... queued for an agent'), plus the ordering rule (goal priority, then step order) and the scope restriction (only each active goal's current plan). This is clearly distinguishable from get_pending_work and complete_agent_task, which the description names.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly routes the agent: outcomes go to complete_agent_task, and standalone tasks belong to get_pending_work. Combined with the 'only current plan' scope limit, the agent can decide when this tool is and is not the right call without opening any schema.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.